Raheel Kamran J:- By this single judgment, I intend to decide the titled petition, Writ Petition No.49857 of 2024, Writ Petition No.50600 of 2024 and Writ Petition No.50310 of 2024 as common question of law, that is, imposition of condition on grant of stay, is involved therein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (‘Appellate Tribunal’) is the first independent forum and any injunctive order passed by it must state reasons for imposing any condition or else the object and purpose of appeal will stand negated. He maintains that section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (‘Ordinance’) does not visualize any condition for grant of stay and the discretion exercised by the Appellate Tribunal by imposing conditions in these matters is unlawful. He further contends that power to grant stay is unhindered and the same cannot be evaded by imposing the impugned condition. 3. Co...
PRESENT:
Raheel Kamran J
Petitioner(s) by: M/s Arslan Saleem Chaudhry Advocate and Barrister Asfandyar Khan Tareen M/s Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Muhammad Nadeem Sheikh, Rana Usman Habib Khan and Azeem Ullah Virk, Advocates Malik Asif Rafique Rajwana, Advocate Mr. Muhammad Hamza Sheikh, Assistant Attorney General Barrister Shahjahan Khan, Advocate.
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Sections: 130(2),131(5),133,134A(11), 131(10)
Raheel Kamran J:- By this single judgment, I intend to decide the titled petition, Writ Petition No.49857 of 2024, Writ Petition No.50600 of 2024 and Writ Petition No.50310 of 2024 as common question of law, that is, imposition of condition on grant of stay, is involved therein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate
Tribunal Inland Revenue (‘Appellate Tribunal’) is the first independent forum and any injunctive order passed by it must state reasons for imposing any condition or else the object and purpose of appeal will stand negated. He maintains that section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (‘Ordinance’) does not visualize any condition for grant of stay and the discretion exercised by the Appellate Tribunal by imposing conditions in these matters is unlawful. He further contends that power to grant stay is unhindered and the same cannot be evaded by imposing the impugned condition. 3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents-department contends that the Appellate Tribunal is possessed of discretionary power to stay recovery of any tax due by virtue of any order being assailed, subject to restrictions or limitations and that the impugned conditions in the instant cases depict only reasonable exercise of judicial discretion.
1 Messrs Pak Saudi Fertilizers vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 PTD 679),
Z. N. Exporters (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Collector of Sales Tax (2003 PTD 1746),
Brothers Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd vs. Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax (2003 PTD 1836),
Messrs Fauji Oil Terminal and Distribution Company Ltd vs. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and 2 others (2012 PTD 1762) and Messrs Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs.
Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (2024 PTD 30)
large manifestly adhered to the same principle while enacting subsection (5) of section 131 of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: -
“131. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Subject to section 126A, any person, other than an SOE, aggrieved by any order passed by an officer of Inland Revenue or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Board under this Ordinance or the rules made thereunder may, within thirty days of the receipt of such order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, a reference to the High Court:
Provided that where sub-section (11) of section 134A apply, an SOE may prefer an appeal under this sub-section.
Provided that on filing of application in a particular case, the Appellate Tribunal may after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Commissioner having jurisdiction, for reasons to be recorded, stay the recovery of tax for ninety days:
Provided further that the stay order shall cease to have effect, and the Commissioner shall be entitled to recover tax, if the taxpayer does not adhere to the hearing schedule for the appeal, as determined by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (2) of section 130:
Provided also that where an appeal is not decided within the statutory period by the Appellate Tribunal, the stay order under the second proviso shall not cease to have effect till finalization of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.”
It is clearly noted that in the above provisions, authority of the Appellate Tribunal to grant stay during pendency of appeal before it is not conditioned by the requirement of deposit or payment of certain amount of tax determined by the forum below. In that way, the above provisions are quite distinct and distinguishable from subsection (10) of section 133 of the Ordinance which restricts or limits authority of this Court to stay recovery of tax, while a Tax Reference is pending, subject to deposit with the assessing authority of not less than 30% of the tax determined by the Appellate Tribunal.
Office shall send certified copy of this judgment to the concerned Appellate Tribunal.
PETITION ALLOWED
Disclaimer / Note: We have reproduced the judgment for facilitation of readers; however, the readers must study the original or certified copy of the above said judgment before referring it in any Court of Law. The judgment as reproduced above is a reported judgment available in law magazines and journals namely: 2025 PTD 274 | (2025) 131 TAX 14 | 2024 LHC 4560